Talk:Jobsworth

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jobsworth article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Psychology Low‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Popular culture (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Popular culture, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Popular cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Popular cultureTemplate:WikiProject Popular culturePopular culture

Song

This seems a pretty accurate description to me, although I haven't heard of the song cited.

OED

The OED entry for Jobsworth is as follows.... http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/jobsworth?view=uk --LiamE 14:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George Melly

I'm pretty sure Taylor's song comfortably predates the George Melly reference in the article. --Bonalaw 20:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Idiom

Best to properly define the old idiom from which the term was extracted to explain recent derisive uses for the neologism. JonMar 16:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What contradiction?

I don't see a contradiction in the claim "To do that is more than my job's worth". It is claimed that doing "that" will cost him his "job". The claim is that he will be fired if he complies with the request. It's the civilian equivalent of only following orders. Jasen betts (talk) 11:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"his" vs. "their"

Ugh, what was wrong with "their"? The new version is ugly and I've never seen Wikipedia use this style {"him" with an asterisk and explanatory note}. I think this breaks http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_self-references . The linguists on language log have a whole series of postings pointing out that singular uses of "they" and "their" are valid and used in eveything from Shakespeare to the King James bible (e.g. http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001582.html ). I'll revert if no-one objects ...

Company man

The article states that the American term company man is equivalent to jobsworth. That wasn't my understanding of either term, so I read the Comapany Man article, and it confirms that the meaning is completely different. A 'company man' is basically a 'yes man', while a jobsworth is an individual who takes pride in inflexibly enforcing petty rules and regulations. --80.176.142.11 (talk) 20:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2007-02-7 Automated pywikipediabot message

This page has been transwikied to Wiktionary.
The article has content that is useful at Wiktionary. Therefore the article can be found at either here or here (logs 1 logs 2.)
Note: This means that the article has been copied to the Wiktionary Transwiki namespace for evaluation and formatting. It does not mean that the article is in the Wiktionary main namespace, or that it has been removed from Wikipedia's. Furthermore, the Wiktionarians might delete the article from Wiktionary if they do not find it to be appropriate for the Wiktionary.
Removing this tag will usually trigger CopyToWiktionaryBot to re-transwiki the entry. This article should have been removed from Category:Copy to Wiktionary and should not be re-added there.

--CopyToWiktionaryBot 04:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Urban Dictionary reference?

The Urban Dictionary as a reference for Wikipedia? Surely that should be the other way around?! 82.43.194.184 (talk) 14:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Atleast it doesn't reference unwords which seems to have a really oddball definitionJasen betts (talk) 11:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Kite

I believe that the shop steward Fred Kite (Peter Sellers) in the film I'm All Right Jack would also be one of the earliest 'jobsworths' to appear on film.

The difference being that his enforcement of petty rules was to further the aims of his Trade union; the modern jobsworth does it for his/her personal enjoyment. Saga City (talk) 13:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A jobsworth's motives may be as diverse as anyone else's; the decisive property is the pedantic use of rules to avoid doing work—or to set up a negotiating position in which it's established that the work in question goes beyond the jobsworth's obligations (i.e. you aren't entitled to expect it of him, so you'll have to give him something for it). For that, Kite qualifies admirably ! 84.215.6.188 (talk) 11:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Saga City. Kite was a political satire. Not a jobsworth, who is promoting his personal ego by finding petty reasons to be uncooperative.

Channelwatcher (talk) 21:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not in my job description

"Not in my job description" etc. is a completely attitude to that of a jobsworth. 91.106.128.85 (talk) 10:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, the jobsworth phrase is directed at customers/clients/passengers/violators in the general public "Not in my job description" is directed against employers/managers in the business or public sector entity that employs the jobsworth. Frequently, of course, they are the tools of the same individual who choses to be uncooperative to the world in general. Saga City (talk) 13:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree. A jobsworth is equally unhelpful to his fellow employees; and, especially where they're in another department and don't have authority to boss him about, he's exhibiting exactly the same attitude towards them as he would towards customers &c. In such a case, "not in my job description" is entirely within the jobsworth character description. Also, I suspect the original meant s/completely/complementary/ above, 84.215.6.188 (talk) 11:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I respectfully disagree in turn. Jeremy Taylor's song coined the phrase before Rantzen, and Jobsworth is clearly a petty official, usually with some kind of uniform or hat. [1] Channelwatcher (talk) 22:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What in what you said is inconsistent with that to which you're replying?--MilFlyboy (talk) 02:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re-thinking that, the hat probably came in with Rantzen. Channelwatcher (talk) 10:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To add more fuel to the fire, I don't think any of this is right. "Not in my job description" is nothing to do with "Jobsworth" because the former will follow his job description's requirements and refuse to do any other tasks (although these days, "other tasks as required by management" is often seen in job descriptions) even though it is possibly risking their job by doing so in some circumstances. A jobsworth doesn't just follow their job description to the letter, they follow the rules to the letter as well, and delight in doing so...they're not doing it because they're lazy, it's because they enjoy it. Both may do similar things, but a fork isn't chopsticks yet people use both to eat food with...y'see? And SagaCity's attempt to suggest that jobsworth is directed at customers is obviously flawed...if they're customers surely they don't have a job within the company and would thus not have anything "not worth" losing, same goes for passengers and probably most of the "general public" you speak of. Both Jobsworth and "NIMJD" are employees of a company (there's a job involved, of course) and both use their "powers" against anyone, not just other employees, although it depends on the job. 78.86.230.62 (talk) 21:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Late to the party here, I know. I don't understand how, if a jobsworth is "a person who uses their job description in a deliberately uncooperative way", that someone using a phrase which expresses exactly that cannot be considered a "jobsworth". It certainly isn't something only directed at employers/fellow employees. Also, fwiw, the word "jobsworth" is very often misapplied by idiots who don't like not getting their own way, and I would gladly wipe it and them from the face of the planet if I could. --90.206.122.122 (talk) 20:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you mean. I've been watching this page since an IP called me a jobsworth for changing 'Actor/Comedian' to 'Actor, comedian'. Rothorpe (talk) 00:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, actually you don't disagree. Saga City essentially said exactly the same thing you did.--MilFlyboy (talk) 02:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quite S a g a C i t y (talk) 09:01, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It could be either. It's a colloquialism. Perhaps you should consult the reference manual of colloquialisms to prove your point? Oh wait there isn't one, hence making it unprovable. Don't you have anything more consequential to debate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.211.54 (talk) 00:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"not in my job description" is actually often a reasonable reply. In some jobs that take place in potentially-hazardous locations - building-sites or dock quaysides - injuries may be covered by insurance *only if* incurred while performing tasks *specifically listed* in the job description...

86.25.121.57 (talk) 15:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's similar to the American phrase 'that's above my pay grade' and is nothing to do with a jobsworth. Jobsworths don't seriously expect to lose their jobs if they agree to a particular request - the whole point is that agreeing would cost them nothing and harm nobody, but they refuse to agree because this gives them a sense of power and superiority in their otherwise menial lives. --Ef80 (talk) 19:19, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

poor description

I'm just highlighting the poorly written and confused main page.

My interpretation of 'jobsworth' is an individual that refuses to do anything that is not in the precise terms of their job description. The main page is simply stating it wrongly when it is asserted that a 'jobsworth' is a person that won't break rules. Look, no employee with any sense is going to actively break rules if they want to keep their job! A 'jobsworth' is not a person who refuses to break rules. A person who refuses to break rules is an honest employee. It also seems to equate - quite wrongly in my view - taking initiative with rule breaking. (Who wrote this nonsense?!) I am going to remove the offending sentences. John2o2o2o (talk) 11:54, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is a person's job worth?

What does the original phrase, "that's more than my job's worth" mean? Does "worth" have the same meaning as "value" here?

I could understand if it was "that's less than my job's worth", e.g. "I won't take a hundred-pound bribe, because I would get sacked, and my job is worth more than one hundred pounds to me." I suppose the opposite would be "I'm not going to go out of my way to help you, because I don't get paid enough for that" or "your request is beyond my pay grade". However, I always took the phrase as having an element of fear: "I won't help you because I'm afraid of getting fired". 184.70.186.150 (talk) 16:13, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the literal meaning of the phrase is "I won't help you because I'm afraid of getting fired". However, the point is that this is just an excuse - there is no realistic possibility of the jobsworth being fired if he helps out. The jobsworth gains satisfaction and a sense of power from being inflexible and uncooperative. Typical jobsworth behaviour would be refusing to sell alcohol to someone unable to show ID, even if they are very obviously much older than the minimum age required, or continuing to write a parking ticket only a few seconds after an expired time limit even when the owner has returned and is about to move the vehicle. --Ef80 (talk) 14:03, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jobsworth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150714161314/http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Bus-driver-conducted-like-little-Hitler-claims/story-19493612-detail/story.html to http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Bus-driver-conducted-like-little-Hitler-claims/story-19493612-detail/story.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:51, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]